Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 6:07:26 GMT -5

I won't name the victim or the perp but a young lady has mentioned a name on a facebook group called Youth 323. And several people are badmouthing her for doing so. Is Don Reynolds over Peru? If so, he needs to look into this incident. I don't know Peruvian law and how CSA is dealt with. This girl was very young at that time...grade school aged.

Post by magpie on Feb 10, 2016 17:05:13 GMT -5

One will get a more sympathetic hearing from even secular friends, than the compassionless self protecting workers,who lie and coverup over such claims. PS,It is as much as possible thrown back as the victim or their spokespersons are the trouble makers.One of their many worldwide unGodly traits.

Post by gells on Feb 10, 2016 18:12:17 GMT -5

There is a person in particular saying they know both parties, and making it sound like these are false allegations, because she knows the other party. Ugh. It makes me so disgusted that people attack the victim because they don't want to believe that someone they trusted could do such a thing. But that's what they do. The majority of perps don't behave as if they are some criminal all the time. They gain the trust of others so no one would possible believe that they did something so heinous as this.

Post by BobWilliston on Feb 10, 2016 19:28:14 GMT -5

I won't name the victim or the perp but a young lady has mentioned a name on a facebook group called Youth 323. And several people are badmouthing her for doing so. Is Don Reynolds over Peru? If so, he needs to look into this incident. I don't know Peruvian law and how CSA is dealt with. This girl was very young at that time...grade school aged.

Involving the overseer is the LAST thing that should be done. Allowing everyone else to discuss it is almost as bad.

My wife is from South Africa and was raised in a professing family, the Barnatos. They are infamous in the meetings. They are 7 children. Three of my wife's sisters and her brother were in the work in South America and Scandinavia. The workers in South Africa called the family a cult and said that they were "a law unto themselves". For that reason they had to go into the work in other countries besides South Africa. The head worker at the time was Jim Johnstone, Jim cautioned both Duane Hopkins(of South America) and Eldon Knudson(of Sweden) about accepting the Barnatos into the work.

The worker in question, who is now home having confessed to CSA in January 2011(we will call him xxxxx) was in the work in South Africa and was in a relationship with Lesley, my sister-in-law(who was not in the work but is professing). My wife knew about their relationship and helped hide it. She was convinced that her family and the workers were godly and that what they were doing was godly. She admired the sacrifice of xxxxx and Lesley because they loved each other but were willing to give up being together in order to do God's work. At around the age of 15 she had worked it out in her mind that that was the kind of relationship that she wanted because it was in her mind the greatest sacrifice and most pleasing to God.

xxxxx went to Bolivia in about 1988. In 1991 Lesley visited xxxxx in Bolivia for 2 weeks. She recounted the whole visit to her sisters and it was obvious to my wife that Lesley was in love. In 1994 xxxxx came on home visit. It was during this time that Lesley wrote the family about xxxxx kissing her. Lesley went to Peru in around 95 or 96 ,where xxxxx was, and also Grant, Lesley's brother, was in the work there. ( My wife was aware at that time that their relationship was much more intimate than she had known in the past. She was also aware since 93 that xxxxx and Lesley were in frequent contact through calls and, later, email.)

In about 2000, xxxxx came on home visit again. This time, xxxxx and Lesley spent a lot more time together. My wife knew that Lesley was taking contraceptives during this time. xxxxx and Lesley spent 4 days hiking alone together and he gave her a ring on this hike as a symbol of his commitment to her. They shared a room together. My wife knew by this time that the relationship was sexual. My wife was convinced that this was a godly relationship and she considered it an honour to be in on the secret and to help them keep their secret from the other friends and workers.

After xxxxx went back to Peru, he got involved with a sister worker(now deceased) in about 2002. She became uncomfortable with the relationship and told Duane Hopkins, Don Reynolds and Trevor Leochel.

Grant Barnato had been companions with Don Reynolds and had access to his email account. He discovered the email exchange between the above-mentioned overseers and xxxxx about the relationship with the sister worker. Grant printed these emails off and showed the whole family.

In these emails, xxxxx was very repentant. He said that it was a mistake and assured them that it would not happen again. It was agreed between Duane, Don and Trevor that xxxxx could keep his place in the work on condition he did not have any more relationships and that he cut off all contact with Lesley. xxxxx agreed to their conditions. The tenor of the emails had to do with what would be best for the reputation of the work. xxxxx was nearly sent home over this but Don Reynolds interceded for xxxxx saying that xxxxx was in tears and truly repentant.

By 2004 a professing in-law to the Barnatos, who had also read the emails, told Andy Robijn, an overseer in South Africa, that Lesley and xxxxx were still in communication with each other. Andy and Johan Kotze, the main overseer of South Africa, knew nothing about the ultimatum given to xxxxx in 2003 by the South American overseers. They contacted Duane Hopkins to verify the information. The case was opened up again. xxxxx was just about to be sent home again but Don Reynolds again interceded for xxxxx. Then Duane said that the in-law was only one witness and not reliable because of his mental condition, and suggested that someone should contact Lesley to verify the story. Duane said on Lesley's witness, xxxxx would be removed from the work. Andy Robijn called Lesley and asked her point blank if she were in a relationship with xxxxx. She said that she would talk to her brother in law and did not give Andy an answer. After that, the brother in law was not available for comment and neither was Lesley. The issue was dropped.

In 2005, Lesley shared that xxxxx had told her that he had cheated on her again in Peru. He was scheduled for his home visit that year. She was very upset and claimed she would be distant from him. But as the time drew near, she became more excited and started making plans for a hike with xxxxx and planned a stay in a remote cabin in the Karoo. My wife and I were in the small town when xxxxx arrived to be with Lesley. We chatted with them as they were getting ready to go off to the cabin. xxxxx was to visit at least once more while we were there. Lesley visited him for a walk on the beach and they spent 5 days together driving around with one of the friends.

During xxxxx's home visit in 2006, my wife and I fled the Barnato family because of their differences in moral standards, among other things. It took us some time to get our feet under us, we got some therapy and realized we needed to confront this issue of dishonesty in the work and the family. We had no email addresses for any of the workers.

I finally found out in 2008 that Charles Vaughn was overseer in Georgia, USA. I had known him in the work and I knew friends there who could give me his email address. I told him the situation and he got in touch with Don Reynolds. Charles was very specific and meticulous to get our story right. He asked even again to verify that xxxxx and Lesley were together in South Africa in 2005. He then emailed Don. Don said that he talked with xxxxx and xxxxx denied that he and Lesley had been together in South Africa on his 2005 home visit. Don told Charles that he "didn't know where we were getting our information from" when clearly Don did know that there had been an ultimatum and that any new incident would clearly violate the agreement the overseers made with xxxxx. Again, Don interceded for xxxxx. Charles would not give us Don's or xxxxx email addresses so that we could speak to them directly. However, Charles did suggest that we do the scriptural thing and confront xxxxx directly. Charles said that he did not doubt me but he had no reason to doubt Don's integrity. As far as he was concerned the case was closed.

I had deleted many of my email addresses from when I was in the work, so I was out of touch with the workers(I left the work in 2001). Once while working I realized that an email address kept going over in my head like background music. I realized that it was Alan Anderson's email address that I once had(from being in the work in Mexico). I wrote Alan and asked him for xxxxx's email address which he sent. My wife wrote xxxxx an email detailing what she had seen in her life of his dishonesty and how it had affected her. He denied there being anything inappropriate in his and Lesley's relationship and said her letter was filled with "inaccuracies". My wife wrote back asking him to tell him where these inaccuracies were. He wrote back saying that he would not continue the discussion unless he had our physical address and added that he could find out from another source but would prefer it came from us. His sister lived in the same town as we did. Also, the Barnato family was actively looking for us in order to "meet us by force." That was in June 2009 that this exchange took place and xxxxx was on convention rounds in Idaho at the time he was writing this threat to us. xxxxx denied that he was in contact with the Barnatos but we knew from living among them that xxxxx and Lesley were always in touch.

We then wrote Alan again and showed him how unsatisfactory the correspondence with xxxxx was. He referred us to Duane Hopkins under whom xxxxxx laboured as Alan felt it was out of his jurisdiction. We forwarded all of our correspondence with Alan and xxxxx to Duane asked Duane if he could mediate for us and have our emails open to xxxxx and his open to us so that all could be on record and we could know the answers to our questions. Duane agreed that that was a reasonable way to work it. He then got Lesley's email address from us and wrote her an email. She blocked his email and ours. Later Duane wrote us back saying that he had contacted 2 people (he did not tell us who) in South Africa who knew Lesley and they gave her a good character witness saying that she and her son were professing and had a good report and they were not aware of any misconduct with xxxxxx. On the weight of that character witness, Duane said that we were just 1 witness and he could not do anything with just one witness. He would not explain to us why we, being two people, were considered one witness. He also did not explain why he did not call Lesley. He said that he considered the matter closed as long as there was no more evidence than what we had.

In September 2009 we "by chance" met Alice Pretorius and her companion, Tracy Birch. We saw them pass in front of us at a stop street and recognized them as sister workers. I had met Alice 15 years almost to the day when she visited Knoxville TN convention, and we had corresponded since then. I had written her last and that was 8 years previous. She said that she had read my letter again just 2 weeks previous to our meeting and remembered what I had written. I looked very different than I did in the work as I had a beard and looked for all the world like a beggar. My best jeans were completely missing a knee. I was completely out of context from the last time we had met. From there we arranged a meeting with Alice and Tracy and told them all about xxxxx. Alice said that it was a shock to her as she had never heard of such a thing in all her 71 years. Tracy said nothing. After a couple of meetings with them, we all felt that it was best if we talked to the overseers, Johan Kotze and Andy Robijn.

Johan and Andy came to see us within about 2 weeks. Andy first said that they at first thought we were wanting to talk about the old issue with xxxxx that was dealt with. They were talking about the ultimatum that xxxxxxx was given back in 2003. They said they had no knowledge until we contacted them that there was a new issue and they wanted to verify that we were bringing up a new incident. They said it greatly concerned them. They then told us that THEY were the two people Duane contacted for character witness. We could not figure out how they did not know that we were talking about a new incident with xxxxxx and Lesley in 2005 that was in violation of the 2003 agreement. That was the whole point of the emails and these are smart men. I could not figure why Duane had not told them that there was a report of a new incident in 2005 when he asked them for character witness. It just made no sense. Well, we talked with Johan and Andy for probably 2 hours. Andy confirmed to us his involvement in the case and that he knew about the leaked emails. Johan Kotze could only talk about "restoration". He said that he believed that "God can restore anything". Johan K gave us a sermon from Graham Snow about "if you bring the scapegoat into the camp, you are not just bringing back the sins of your brother, but you are bringing back your OWN sin..." We said that we were interested in the ultimatum that xxxxx was given and the violation of the ultimatum because he was being allowed to go free in the work as a trusted servant of God and he was hurting people and damaging lives. Johan was headed to South America within 2 weeks of our meeting for convention rounds. He said that he wanted to talk to xxxxx face to face and see his reaction. Upon leaving he reiterated that he believed in restoration. A few weeks later we got an email from Johan. He said that he had had a "heart to heart talk" with xxxxx and found that there was "nothing untoward" in him. He then told us in no uncertain terms that he wanted nothing more to do with any mention of the case and did not want his or Andy's name brought up about it ever again. He also suggested that we get our souls right. Also, Johan and Andy told us that if God shuts a door, we should not try to open it. I told them that if God opens a door, they cannot shut it and I will go in that door and I would not give up. Andy had asked me in the conversation if I were willing to stand by my word if they brought up the subject again. I assured him I would and offered to put that in writing if he needed it.

We waited a few months, came back to the States and wrote a letter of the chronology of events (much like is written above) and sent it to the Barnato family(who all have known for over 25 years that xxxxx and Lesley were in a relationship) and the overseers involved. We got no response from that letter at all. We then started calling overseers and sending the letter to as many overseers as we could.

Here is a list of the overseers we have either talked to on the phone or sent an email or seen face to face: All know about the issue and no one would look at the discrepancies we were finding in our dealings with Duane, Don, Johan and Andy. Note, if xxxxx had simply been honest and answered our questions, we would not have had this opportunity. If Duane had simply mediated between us and come to the truth of the matter, there would have been no need to go any further.

(I had said 21 overseers we had contacted. My wife and I discovered that we were including 3 workers who were not overseers in our first count). We had contacted all these people by October 1, 2010.

The Sunday before Fosters convention (which started on the last day of September 2010) we made spontaneous plans to attend the convention. Someone offered to pay our petrol and which made it possible for us to go. We were not planning to go but decided that it would be really nice to see the friends there since I had labored down there in the work and had told my wife about some of the friends. She wanted to meet them and I wanted to introduce her. As a result of being there, we discovered that there was someone else who had an issue with xxxxx. We contacted her and she told us that the week before Fosters she had just written an email to xxxxx, got a admission to CSA, and then she sent out her email and xxxxx's reply, to Johan Kotze, Andy Robijn, Duane Hopkins and Trevor Leochel. Two weeks later, Duane, not knowing that we were in touch with the lady, wrote us saying that new accusations had come up against xxxxx and that the "accused and the accuser will meet face to face." In December, xxxxx was still in the work on convention rounds in Argentina and Chile. And then he went home for his scheduled home visit. Only after these conventions did Duane inform the "accuser" that xxxxxx was out of the work. This was 2 weeks before he returned to South Africa in January 2011. So Duane knew about the CSA charge in October and only took xxxxx out of the work at the end of December, after xxxxx went on convention rounds AND when he was already scheduled for a home visit. So it did not appear that xxxxx was out of the work and no awkward explanations were needed.

Upon return to South Africa, xxxxx admitted to CSA, a sexual relationship with Lesley, and also the sister worker and xxxxx has finally been put permanently out of the work.

There are clearly critical bits of evidence that these overseers, who are all smart men, are overlooking.

It did not seem important to the overseers that xxxxx was in violation of the agreement that they had made with him: IE "Stop messing around with women and break off all contact with Lesley or lose your place in the work." Their word did not mean anything.

Lesley did not give Andy a direct answer to his question and then later she blocked Duane's emails. Her refusal to answer was deemed non conclusive rather than suspicious.

They took our two eyewitnesses as one eyewitness.

Don Reynolds told Charles that he did not know where we were getting our information yet he knew that Grant had downloaded and shared his emails concerning the matter.

The overseers did not acknowledge the unreasonableness of xxxxx's threat, nor did they see it as evidence of guilt.

Andy and Johan acknowledged us as two eyewitnesses and acknowledged that there was an ultimatum, yet they went about to "restore" xxxxx again. They cannot hold true to their own word. xxxxx made an agreement with Don, Duane and Trevor. Johan and Andy knew about it and agreed to enforce it as well. But when the time came, Johan was more interested in "restoration". That alone raises serious questions of integrity. They went back on their word.

Duane said that having an open email conversation was reasonable and it would let all parties see what was being said and have a record of it. However, we never got an email audience with xxxxx with Duane as the mediator. Our questions never were answered.

Duane found out about the allegation of CSA and left xxxxx in the work for at least 3 months afterwards and even sent xxxxx on convention rounds. This CSA allegation was after xxxxx's HISTORY of sexual misconduct and after we had been trying to call attention to his continued sexual misconduct in violation of the overseers' agreement with him.

During the course of raising these questions, we have been repeatedly told that they are concerned for our souls.

When we talked to Barry Barkley, he did not feel that it was a matter that he could address because it was out of his jurisdiction and he had confidence in Duane. But he did say that his first concern was for our souls.

After xxxxx was put out of the work, Ray Hoffman asked me on the phone if Johan Kotze had contacted me and apologized for doubting me or thanked me for my efforts to get xxxxx out of the work. Of course, I said that he had not. I told Ray that I was giving Johan the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was just too busy at the moment and he would contact me when things cooled down. Johan Kotze has yet to write.

Not one overseer could see these inconsistencies as important enough to question their peers. None have questioned Duane's decision to have xxxxx remain in the work for 3 months after his admission to CSA. Lyle Schober tried to suggest that this had happened in the past but now the overseers are learning how to deal with these matters through awareness and training. He ignored the fact that it had NOT happened 10 years ago but just 2 weeks previous to our conversation. Duane is very aware of the CSA issues and how seriously these issues are now being treated all over the world. So are Johan Kotze and Andy Robijn. After all their training, not ONE overseer has thought it a problem that xxxxx was left in the work and still went on convention rounds in Argentina and Chile AFTER the CSA allegation was raised!

Caution: My posts are my opinions only and are not intended to offend other members. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine!Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. ~ Romans 13:13 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery. ~ Galatians 5:19Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. ~ Ephesians 5:11

My wife is from South Africa and was raised in a professing family, the Barnatos. They are infamous in the meetings. They are 7 children. Three of my wife's sisters and her brother were in the work in South America and Scandinavia. The workers in South Africa called the family a cult and said that they were "a law unto themselves". For that reason they had to go into the work in other countries besides South Africa. The head worker at the time was Jim Johnstone, Jim cautioned both Duane Hopkins(of South America) and Eldon Knudson(of Sweden) about accepting the Barnatos into the work.

The worker in question, who is now home having confessed to CSA in January 2011(we will call him xxxxx) was in the work in South Africa and was in a relationship with Lesley, my sister-in-law(who was not in the work but is professing). My wife knew about their relationship and helped hide it. She was convinced that her family and the workers were godly and that what they were doing was godly. She admired the sacrifice of xxxxx and Lesley because they loved each other but were willing to give up being together in order to do God's work. At around the age of 15 she had worked it out in her mind that that was the kind of relationship that she wanted because it was in her mind the greatest sacrifice and most pleasing to God.

xxxxx went to Bolivia in about 1988. In 1991 Lesley visited xxxxx in Bolivia for 2 weeks. She recounted the whole visit to her sisters and it was obvious to my wife that Lesley was in love. In 1994 xxxxx came on home visit. It was during this time that Lesley wrote the family about xxxxx kissing her. Lesley went to Peru in around 95 or 96 ,where xxxxx was, and also Grant, Lesley's brother, was in the work there. ( My wife was aware at that time that their relationship was much more intimate than she had known in the past. She was also aware since 93 that xxxxx and Lesley were in frequent contact through calls and, later, email.)

In about 2000, xxxxx came on home visit again. This time, xxxxx and Lesley spent a lot more time together. My wife knew that Lesley was taking contraceptives during this time. xxxxx and Lesley spent 4 days hiking alone together and he gave her a ring on this hike as a symbol of his commitment to her. They shared a room together. My wife knew by this time that the relationship was sexual. My wife was convinced that this was a godly relationship and she considered it an honour to be in on the secret and to help them keep their secret from the other friends and workers.

After xxxxx went back to Peru, he got involved with a sister worker(now deceased) in about 2002. She became uncomfortable with the relationship and told Duane Hopkins, Don Reynolds and Trevor Leochel.

Grant Barnato had been companions with Don Reynolds and had access to his email account. He discovered the email exchange between the above-mentioned overseers and xxxxx about the relationship with the sister worker. Grant printed these emails off and showed the whole family.

In these emails, xxxxx was very repentant. He said that it was a mistake and assured them that it would not happen again. It was agreed between Duane, Don and Trevor that xxxxx could keep his place in the work on condition he did not have any more relationships and that he cut off all contact with Lesley. xxxxx agreed to their conditions. The tenor of the emails had to do with what would be best for the reputation of the work. xxxxx was nearly sent home over this but Don Reynolds interceded for xxxxx saying that xxxxx was in tears and truly repentant.

By 2004 a professing in-law to the Barnatos, who had also read the emails, told Andy Robijn, an overseer in South Africa, that Lesley and xxxxx were still in communication with each other. Andy and Johan Kotze, the main overseer of South Africa, knew nothing about the ultimatum given to xxxxx in 2003 by the South American overseers. They contacted Duane Hopkins to verify the information. The case was opened up again. xxxxx was just about to be sent home again but Don Reynolds again interceded for xxxxx. Then Duane said that the in-law was only one witness and not reliable because of his mental condition, and suggested that someone should contact Lesley to verify the story. Duane said on Lesley's witness, xxxxx would be removed from the work. Andy Robijn called Lesley and asked her point blank if she were in a relationship with xxxxx. She said that she would talk to her brother in law and did not give Andy an answer. After that, the brother in law was not available for comment and neither was Lesley. The issue was dropped.

In 2005, Lesley shared that xxxxx had told her that he had cheated on her again in Peru. He was scheduled for his home visit that year. She was very upset and claimed she would be distant from him. But as the time drew near, she became more excited and started making plans for a hike with xxxxx and planned a stay in a remote cabin in the Karoo. My wife and I were in the small town when xxxxx arrived to be with Lesley. We chatted with them as they were getting ready to go off to the cabin. xxxxx was to visit at least once more while we were there. Lesley visited him for a walk on the beach and they spent 5 days together driving around with one of the friends.

During xxxxx's home visit in 2006, my wife and I fled the Barnato family because of their differences in moral standards, among other things. It took us some time to get our feet under us, we got some therapy and realized we needed to confront this issue of dishonesty in the work and the family. We had no email addresses for any of the workers.

I finally found out in 2008 that Charles Vaughn was overseer in Georgia, USA. I had known him in the work and I knew friends there who could give me his email address. I told him the situation and he got in touch with Don Reynolds. Charles was very specific and meticulous to get our story right. He asked even again to verify that xxxxx and Lesley were together in South Africa in 2005. He then emailed Don. Don said that he talked with xxxxx and xxxxx denied that he and Lesley had been together in South Africa on his 2005 home visit. Don told Charles that he "didn't know where we were getting our information from" when clearly Don did know that there had been an ultimatum and that any new incident would clearly violate the agreement the overseers made with xxxxx. Again, Don interceded for xxxxx. Charles would not give us Don's or xxxxx email addresses so that we could speak to them directly. However, Charles did suggest that we do the scriptural thing and confront xxxxx directly. Charles said that he did not doubt me but he had no reason to doubt Don's integrity. As far as he was concerned the case was closed.

I had deleted many of my email addresses from when I was in the work, so I was out of touch with the workers(I left the work in 2001). Once while working I realized that an email address kept going over in my head like background music. I realized that it was Alan Anderson's email address that I once had(from being in the work in Mexico). I wrote Alan and asked him for xxxxx's email address which he sent. My wife wrote xxxxx an email detailing what she had seen in her life of his dishonesty and how it had affected her. He denied there being anything inappropriate in his and Lesley's relationship and said her letter was filled with "inaccuracies". My wife wrote back asking him to tell him where these inaccuracies were. He wrote back saying that he would not continue the discussion unless he had our physical address and added that he could find out from another source but would prefer it came from us. His sister lived in the same town as we did. Also, the Barnato family was actively looking for us in order to "meet us by force." That was in June 2009 that this exchange took place and xxxxx was on convention rounds in Idaho at the time he was writing this threat to us. xxxxx denied that he was in contact with the Barnatos but we knew from living among them that xxxxx and Lesley were always in touch.

We then wrote Alan again and showed him how unsatisfactory the correspondence with xxxxx was. He referred us to Duane Hopkins under whom xxxxxx laboured as Alan felt it was out of his jurisdiction. We forwarded all of our correspondence with Alan and xxxxx to Duane asked Duane if he could mediate for us and have our emails open to xxxxx and his open to us so that all could be on record and we could know the answers to our questions. Duane agreed that that was a reasonable way to work it. He then got Lesley's email address from us and wrote her an email. She blocked his email and ours. Later Duane wrote us back saying that he had contacted 2 people (he did not tell us who) in South Africa who knew Lesley and they gave her a good character witness saying that she and her son were professing and had a good report and they were not aware of any misconduct with xxxxxx. On the weight of that character witness, Duane said that we were just 1 witness and he could not do anything with just one witness. He would not explain to us why we, being two people, were considered one witness. He also did not explain why he did not call Lesley. He said that he considered the matter closed as long as there was no more evidence than what we had.

In September 2009 we "by chance" met Alice Pretorius and her companion, Tracy Birch. We saw them pass in front of us at a stop street and recognized them as sister workers. I had met Alice 15 years almost to the day when she visited Knoxville TN convention, and we had corresponded since then. I had written her last and that was 8 years previous. She said that she had read my letter again just 2 weeks previous to our meeting and remembered what I had written. I looked very different than I did in the work as I had a beard and looked for all the world like a beggar. My best jeans were completely missing a knee. I was completely out of context from the last time we had met. From there we arranged a meeting with Alice and Tracy and told them all about xxxxx. Alice said that it was a shock to her as she had never heard of such a thing in all her 71 years. Tracy said nothing. After a couple of meetings with them, we all felt that it was best if we talked to the overseers, Johan Kotze and Andy Robijn.

Johan and Andy came to see us within about 2 weeks. Andy first said that they at first thought we were wanting to talk about the old issue with xxxxx that was dealt with. They were talking about the ultimatum that xxxxxxx was given back in 2003. They said they had no knowledge until we contacted them that there was a new issue and they wanted to verify that we were bringing up a new incident. They said it greatly concerned them. They then told us that THEY were the two people Duane contacted for character witness. We could not figure out how they did not know that we were talking about a new incident with xxxxxx and Lesley in 2005 that was in violation of the 2003 agreement. That was the whole point of the emails and these are smart men. I could not figure why Duane had not told them that there was a report of a new incident in 2005 when he asked them for character witness. It just made no sense. Well, we talked with Johan and Andy for probably 2 hours. Andy confirmed to us his involvement in the case and that he knew about the leaked emails. Johan Kotze could only talk about "restoration". He said that he believed that "God can restore anything". Johan K gave us a sermon from Graham Snow about "if you bring the scapegoat into the camp, you are not just bringing back the sins of your brother, but you are bringing back your OWN sin..." We said that we were interested in the ultimatum that xxxxx was given and the violation of the ultimatum because he was being allowed to go free in the work as a trusted servant of God and he was hurting people and damaging lives. Johan was headed to South America within 2 weeks of our meeting for convention rounds. He said that he wanted to talk to xxxxx face to face and see his reaction. Upon leaving he reiterated that he believed in restoration. A few weeks later we got an email from Johan. He said that he had had a "heart to heart talk" with xxxxx and found that there was "nothing untoward" in him. He then told us in no uncertain terms that he wanted nothing more to do with any mention of the case and did not want his or Andy's name brought up about it ever again. He also suggested that we get our souls right. Also, Johan and Andy told us that if God shuts a door, we should not try to open it. I told them that if God opens a door, they cannot shut it and I will go in that door and I would not give up. Andy had asked me in the conversation if I were willing to stand by my word if they brought up the subject again. I assured him I would and offered to put that in writing if he needed it.

We waited a few months, came back to the States and wrote a letter of the chronology of events (much like is written above) and sent it to the Barnato family(who all have known for over 25 years that xxxxx and Lesley were in a relationship) and the overseers involved. We got no response from that letter at all. We then started calling overseers and sending the letter to as many overseers as we could.

Here is a list of the overseers we have either talked to on the phone or sent an email or seen face to face: All know about the issue and no one would look at the discrepancies we were finding in our dealings with Duane, Don, Johan and Andy. Note, if xxxxx had simply been honest and answered our questions, we would not have had this opportunity. If Duane had simply mediated between us and come to the truth of the matter, there would have been no need to go any further.

(I had said 21 overseers we had contacted. My wife and I discovered that we were including 3 workers who were not overseers in our first count). We had contacted all these people by October 1, 2010.

The Sunday before Fosters convention (which started on the last day of September 2010) we made spontaneous plans to attend the convention. Someone offered to pay our petrol and which made it possible for us to go. We were not planning to go but decided that it would be really nice to see the friends there since I had labored down there in the work and had told my wife about some of the friends. She wanted to meet them and I wanted to introduce her. As a result of being there, we discovered that there was someone else who had an issue with xxxxx. We contacted her and she told us that the week before Fosters she had just written an email to xxxxx, got a admission to CSA, and then she sent out her email and xxxxx's reply, to Johan Kotze, Andy Robijn, Duane Hopkins and Trevor Leochel. Two weeks later, Duane, not knowing that we were in touch with the lady, wrote us saying that new accusations had come up against xxxxx and that the "accused and the accuser will meet face to face." In December, xxxxx was still in the work on convention rounds in Argentina and Chile. And then he went home for his scheduled home visit. Only after these conventions did Duane inform the "accuser" that xxxxxx was out of the work. This was 2 weeks before he returned to South Africa in January 2011. So Duane knew about the CSA charge in October and only took xxxxx out of the work at the end of December, after xxxxx went on convention rounds AND when he was already scheduled for a home visit. So it did not appear that xxxxx was out of the work and no awkward explanations were needed.

Upon return to South Africa, xxxxx admitted to CSA, a sexual relationship with Lesley, and also the sister worker and xxxxx has finally been put permanently out of the work.

There are clearly critical bits of evidence that these overseers, who are all smart men, are overlooking.

It did not seem important to the overseers that xxxxx was in violation of the agreement that they had made with him: IE "Stop messing around with women and break off all contact with Lesley or lose your place in the work." Their word did not mean anything.

Lesley did not give Andy a direct answer to his question and then later she blocked Duane's emails. Her refusal to answer was deemed non conclusive rather than suspicious.

They took our two eyewitnesses as one eyewitness.

Don Reynolds told Charles that he did not know where we were getting our information yet he knew that Grant had downloaded and shared his emails concerning the matter.

The overseers did not acknowledge the unreasonableness of xxxxx's threat, nor did they see it as evidence of guilt.

Andy and Johan acknowledged us as two eyewitnesses and acknowledged that there was an ultimatum, yet they went about to "restore" xxxxx again. They cannot hold true to their own word. xxxxx made an agreement with Don, Duane and Trevor. Johan and Andy knew about it and agreed to enforce it as well. But when the time came, Johan was more interested in "restoration". That alone raises serious questions of integrity. They went back on their word.

Duane said that having an open email conversation was reasonable and it would let all parties see what was being said and have a record of it. However, we never got an email audience with xxxxx with Duane as the mediator. Our questions never were answered.

Duane found out about the allegation of CSA and left xxxxx in the work for at least 3 months afterwards and even sent xxxxx on convention rounds. This CSA allegation was after xxxxx's HISTORY of sexual misconduct and after we had been trying to call attention to his continued sexual misconduct in violation of the overseers' agreement with him.

During the course of raising these questions, we have been repeatedly told that they are concerned for our souls.

When we talked to Barry Barkley, he did not feel that it was a matter that he could address because it was out of his jurisdiction and he had confidence in Duane. But he did say that his first concern was for our souls.

After xxxxx was put out of the work, Ray Hoffman asked me on the phone if Johan Kotze had contacted me and apologized for doubting me or thanked me for my efforts to get xxxxx out of the work. Of course, I said that he had not. I told Ray that I was giving Johan the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was just too busy at the moment and he would contact me when things cooled down. Johan Kotze has yet to write.

Not one overseer could see these inconsistencies as important enough to question their peers. None have questioned Duane's decision to have xxxxx remain in the work for 3 months after his admission to CSA. Lyle Schober tried to suggest that this had happened in the past but now the overseers are learning how to deal with these matters through awareness and training. He ignored the fact that it had NOT happened 10 years ago but just 2 weeks previous to our conversation. Duane is very aware of the CSA issues and how seriously these issues are now being treated all over the world. So are Johan Kotze and Andy Robijn. After all their training, not ONE overseer has thought it a problem that xxxxx was left in the work and still went on convention rounds in Argentina and Chile AFTER the CSA allegation was raised!

Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 11, 2016 13:04:55 GMT -5

I won't name the victim or the perp but a young lady has mentioned a name on a facebook group called Youth 323. And several people are badmouthing her for doing so. Is Don Reynolds over Peru? If so, he needs to look into this incident. I don't know Peruvian law and how CSA is dealt with. This girl was very young at that time...grade school aged.

I dont know anything about the case but what if it wasnt true? Imagine if you were the accused and you were innocent. I sincerely hope she has gone to the police because to name someone on a public forum and then not let that accusation be investigated by the authorities is totally wrong.

Post by fixit on Feb 11, 2016 15:44:08 GMT -5

I won't name the victim or the perp but a young lady has mentioned a name on a facebook group called Youth 323. And several people are badmouthing her for doing so. Is Don Reynolds over Peru? If so, he needs to look into this incident. I don't know Peruvian law and how CSA is dealt with. This girl was very young at that time...grade school aged.

I dont know anything about the case but what if it wasnt true? Imagine if you were the accused and you were innocent. I sincerely hope she has gone to the police because to name someone on a public forum and then not let that accusation be investigated by the authorities is totally wrong.

On the face of it, I agree with you.

However, this may be a cry for help from a victim of an evil crime that no child should ever be subjected to.

Especially by people who masquerade as "servants of God".

Hopefully friends and workers will be coming to understand the enormity of the impact CSA has on victims, and that it's a serious crime to be handled by proper authorities (not hushed up internally within the church).

Caution: My posts are my opinions only and are not intended to offend other members. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine!Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. ~ Romans 13:13 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery. ~ Galatians 5:19Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. ~ Ephesians 5:11

Post by howitis on Feb 11, 2016 18:55:53 GMT -5

How sad and shameful, two stories there ts's, which reminds me a little of the recent case and trial of a community services worker in South Australia, seems many people were made aware of his violations, but not one of them truly acted appropriately.Then there's the allegations from the Facebook page which reminds me a little of a friend who was sexually assaulted from a very young age by her father, a 'good, upstanding Catholic' man...from the words of the judge....'there are various sorts of perversions, people had knowledge of the assaults on this victim, yet did nothing, people knowing this man was supposedly 'upstanding' in the Catholic church, have now sat back and said 'I wonder how the church will go about this one',..these are all perversions, just like this father's assault on his own child, they are perversions because none acted to protect that child, none gave her a voice, none stooped to help.....'I do not have access to what has been aired on the Facebook page, but for those who do, please do something, forget sneering at the church, forget your comfort zone, forget that these people are perhaps your friends and remember a child without a voice!!!

Post by howitis on Feb 11, 2016 21:50:14 GMT -5

Whilst to me Ross.Bowden it is of little import whether a perpetrator is rebaptised or not, what I find alarming is the shroud that covers CSA.To me those that say 'don't go to the police' are just as guilty and involved as the actual perpetrator. What are they trying to hide? Are they also involved in such actions?Whilst Alan Kitto has returned to NSW a very nervous person, (perhaps rightly so), which even other workers have noted, there is A LOT of explaining to do!!! I am a much stronger person now and refuse to let the voices of innocent children be silenced and treated as worthless! Wherever I hear that past victims have been silenced I am encouraging them to speak LOUDLY and if they choose to take it to the law. Current victims I am reporting regardless........this goes for both inside and outside of the church, regardless of the assault, whether it is sexual or not.....too many people are battered by assault both past and present and the effects are far reaching.PS for those that can, check out Bobby Veen's story -Lateline tonight

Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 8:07:25 GMT -5

However, this may be a cry for help from a victim of an evil crime that no child should ever be subjected to.

Especially by people who masquerade as "servants of God".

Hopefully friends and workers will be coming to understand the enormity of the impact CSA has on victims, and that it's a serious crime to be handled by proper authorities (not hushed up internally within the church).

I agree, but sadly in Australia nothing that is obvious has been done by senior workers to protect innocent children from being sexually abused by members of their ministry or by elders of the church which they represent.

To the contrary in Australia there have been cover-ups, hiring an expensive psychologist to protect a Victorian worker, re-baptising an ex-worker who has been gaoled for Child Sexual Abuse, a worker dismissed for raising an issue against another worker....and the list goes on.

And while there is an active network of professing people who do care about protecting children and do not take a backward step with workers regarding the issue, many professing people sit idly by and with their silence are complicit in covering up the fruitless deeds of darkness that Paul talks about in Ephesians 5:11.

The words of one young girl who was sexually abused for years rings in my ears. Some years ago when she went to Allan Kitto, the recently installed Head Worker of New South Wales, to advise him that she was going to the police, she received the response "Whatever you do, don't take it to the police...". In raising it, she was projected as just a silly girl.

Has the approach and attitudes of senior workers in this country changed over the past few years? The evidence would suggest no.

I know many people on this Board appreciate the positive stance you take on the issue. Maybe that is why the Head Worker of NZ is more progressive on tackling the issue.

Ross, do you know if the workers in Australia still stay in the homes of friends who have children, or the homes where other vulnerable people stay? Also, do they stay in homes when one spouse is away for part of the day or more (eg work). By that I mean the spouse of the opposite sex remains at home while the workers are there?

Post by slowtosee on Feb 12, 2016 10:14:58 GMT -5

I wonder if the belief of some workers is that THEY have been given the power to control forgiveness or guilt of other peoples sins and consider themselves as a continuation of disciples who jesus said to them "if you forhive anyone his sins they are forgiven ;if you do not forgive them they are not forgiven.:

If you pass the workers forgiveness test , based strongly on your loyalty to them, you get a "pass" but if your complete loyalty and devotion to them is in question, even though you ar e a victum of sexual assault, the perp will be "forgiven" ahead of the victum. Alvin

Post by kittens on Feb 13, 2016 4:31:07 GMT -5

Whilst to me Ross.Bowden it is of little import whether a perpetrator is rebaptised or not, what I find alarming is the shroud that covers CSA.To me those that say 'don't go to the police' are just as guilty and involved as the actual perpetrator. What are they trying to hide? Are they also involved in such actions?Whilst Alan Kitto has returned to NSW a very nervous person, (perhaps rightly so), which even other workers have noted, there is A LOT of explaining to do!!! I am a much stronger person now and refuse to let the voices of innocent children be silenced and treated as worthless! Wherever I hear that past victims have been silenced I am encouraging them to speak LOUDLY and if they choose to take it to the law. Current victims I am reporting regardless........this goes for both inside and outside of the church, regardless of the assault, whether it is sexual or not.....too many people are battered by assault both past and present and the effects are far reaching.PS for those that can, check out Bobby Veen's story -Lateline tonight

Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2016 4:58:35 GMT -5

Whilst to me Ross.Bowden it is of little import whether a perpetrator is rebaptised or not, what I find alarming is the shroud that covers CSA.To me those that say 'don't go to the police' are just as guilty and involved as the actual perpetrator. What are they trying to hide? Are they also involved in such actions?Whilst Alan Kitto has returned to NSW a very nervous person, (perhaps rightly so), which even other workers have noted, there is A LOT of explaining to do!!! I am a much stronger person now and refuse to let the voices of innocent children be silenced and treated as worthless! Wherever I hear that past victims have been silenced I am encouraging them to speak LOUDLY and if they choose to take it to the law. Current victims I am reporting regardless........this goes for both inside and outside of the church, regardless of the assault, whether it is sexual or not.....too many people are battered by assault both past and present and the effects are far reaching.PS for those that can, check out Bobby Veen's story -Lateline tonight

Some folks don't understand that the church will emerge stronger as a result of the light shining on the darkness.

Folks who cover up child sexual abuse and other sexual immorality probably should be nervous as they contemplate standing before their maker to give account of their actions.

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. ~ Ephesians 5:11

Caution: My posts are my opinions only and are not intended to offend other members. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine!Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. ~ Romans 13:13 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery. ~ Galatians 5:19Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. ~ Ephesians 5:11

Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 6:36:24 GMT -5

Ross, do you know if the workers in Australia still stay in the homes of friends who have children, or the homes where other vulnerable people stay? Also, do they stay in homes when one spouse is away for part of the day or more (eg work). By that I mean the spouse of the opposite sex remains at home while the workers are there?

Ram - the answer is "Yes" to all of your questions. The only (understandable) thing they don't do is stay overnight at the house of a single person who is of the opposite sex. In relation to Child Sexual Abuse, most don't think it is a problem that they need to do anything about. So nothing is done.

I would encourage all professing people to ask their elders and leaders about what guidelines and safe ministry training is in place to protect children against Child Sexual Abuse.

If the answer is none, they will always be able to find a Bible based church where these programs are in place and the protection and welfare of children is taken seriously and significant importance is placed on it.

Ross, thanks for that. You may be aware that some years ago, I was amongst the first, if not the first person on these boards to suggest (strongly) that in light of the, then emerging cases of CSA etc, that until proper safety and protection guidelines were drawn up the workers should implement interim guidelines to protect children and other vulnerable persons, including vulnerable young workers, sister workers etc, including not staying overnight in the homes where there were children, etc. I was ridiculed for my views at that time, probably because the amount of cases that were known about were comparatively few.

It is therefore disappointing to learn that despite a fairly large volume of cases that have come to light since then, that nothing proper seems to have been done to protect the vulnerable. This subject virtually drove me off my head over a period of a couple of years debating. It is just as well I pulled away from it all, otherwise you guys would be getting more peace!

Post by howitis on Feb 13, 2016 7:37:23 GMT -5

What is really sad is that since the letter appeared on that Facebook page, it has been mentioned here, on another internet site and is now posted on yet another site (with permission, no doubt, of course). How can a scared, vulnerable person truly give their permission or even take into account what that even means. I believe the judge at my friends CSA case hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the 'perversions' that people have. It is sad to see people using and taking advantage of abused, vulnerable people and using their unfortunate circumstances to help push their personal barrows.

Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 12:22:12 GMT -5

When I read "Howitis" post above, I get the notion that he/she thinks posting the letter is somehow about as bad as CSA. This young lady chose to post her letter. I applaud her for it. The real issue is CSA and not posting letters on some forum.

Post by CherieKropp on Feb 13, 2016 17:41:45 GMT -5

When I read "Howitis" post above, I get the notion that he/she thinks posting the letter is somehow about as bad as CSA. This young lady chose to post her letter. I applaud her for it. The real issue is CSA and not posting letters on some forum.

Shoutbox

wally: proboards can be a bit buggy...i still get virus warnings when clicking on thread links...Feb 26, 2020 22:04:28 GMT -5

ant_rotten: Does anyone else constantly have a pop up saying “do you want to download index.html” when using TMB desktop version? This happens to me both on my iPhone and iPad.. Feb 26, 2020 19:56:33 GMT -5

wally: you haven't asked me a question or anything or did i miss one?Feb 20, 2020 6:03:05 GMT -5